Social acceptability of fuel management in the Australian Capital Territory and surrounding region

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    2 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    Managing fuel to reduce wildland fire risk often creates substantial public debate. Although the acceptability of various fuel management strategies has been explored in some regions, particularly North America, the social acceptability of fuel management is less well understood in other countries. This paper begins to address this knowledge gap by exploring acceptability by residents living in and near the Australian Capital Territory, Australia of three fuel management strategies (prescribed burning, livestock grazing and mechanical thinning) used to reduce wildland fire risk to life and property. All three were considered acceptable by most survey respondents. Acceptability did not vary substantially between strategies or by the location in which the strategy was undertaken. Acceptability of fuel management was associated with trust in fire management agencies, having knowledge of fuel management, feeling vulnerable to wildland fire and respondent characteristics such as previous effects of wildland fires, location of residence, gender, age, income and employment status.
    LanguageEnglish
    Pages1093-1109
    Number of pages17
    JournalInternational Journal of Wildland Fire
    Volume25
    Issue number10
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 2016

    Fingerprint

    Australian Capital Territory
    wildfires
    prescribed burning
    fire management
    thinning
    livestock
    gender
    income
    grazing

    Cite this

    @article{d65e7d3c6daa4168ae6274c38747253d,
    title = "Social acceptability of fuel management in the Australian Capital Territory and surrounding region",
    abstract = "Managing fuel to reduce wildland fire risk often creates substantial public debate. Although the acceptability of various fuel management strategies has been explored in some regions, particularly North America, the social acceptability of fuel management is less well understood in other countries. This paper begins to address this knowledge gap by exploring acceptability by residents living in and near the Australian Capital Territory, Australia of three fuel management strategies (prescribed burning, livestock grazing and mechanical thinning) used to reduce wildland fire risk to life and property. All three were considered acceptable by most survey respondents. Acceptability did not vary substantially between strategies or by the location in which the strategy was undertaken. Acceptability of fuel management was associated with trust in fire management agencies, having knowledge of fuel management, feeling vulnerable to wildland fire and respondent characteristics such as previous effects of wildland fires, location of residence, gender, age, income and employment status.",
    keywords = "livestock grazing, mechanical thinning, prescribed burning",
    author = "Mel MYLEK and Jacki SCHIRMER",
    year = "2016",
    doi = "10.1071/WF15164",
    language = "English",
    volume = "25",
    pages = "1093--1109",
    journal = "International Journal of Wildland Fire",
    issn = "1049-8001",
    publisher = "CSIRO",
    number = "10",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Social acceptability of fuel management in the Australian Capital Territory and surrounding region

    AU - MYLEK, Mel

    AU - SCHIRMER, Jacki

    PY - 2016

    Y1 - 2016

    N2 - Managing fuel to reduce wildland fire risk often creates substantial public debate. Although the acceptability of various fuel management strategies has been explored in some regions, particularly North America, the social acceptability of fuel management is less well understood in other countries. This paper begins to address this knowledge gap by exploring acceptability by residents living in and near the Australian Capital Territory, Australia of three fuel management strategies (prescribed burning, livestock grazing and mechanical thinning) used to reduce wildland fire risk to life and property. All three were considered acceptable by most survey respondents. Acceptability did not vary substantially between strategies or by the location in which the strategy was undertaken. Acceptability of fuel management was associated with trust in fire management agencies, having knowledge of fuel management, feeling vulnerable to wildland fire and respondent characteristics such as previous effects of wildland fires, location of residence, gender, age, income and employment status.

    AB - Managing fuel to reduce wildland fire risk often creates substantial public debate. Although the acceptability of various fuel management strategies has been explored in some regions, particularly North America, the social acceptability of fuel management is less well understood in other countries. This paper begins to address this knowledge gap by exploring acceptability by residents living in and near the Australian Capital Territory, Australia of three fuel management strategies (prescribed burning, livestock grazing and mechanical thinning) used to reduce wildland fire risk to life and property. All three were considered acceptable by most survey respondents. Acceptability did not vary substantially between strategies or by the location in which the strategy was undertaken. Acceptability of fuel management was associated with trust in fire management agencies, having knowledge of fuel management, feeling vulnerable to wildland fire and respondent characteristics such as previous effects of wildland fires, location of residence, gender, age, income and employment status.

    KW - livestock grazing

    KW - mechanical thinning

    KW - prescribed burning

    U2 - 10.1071/WF15164

    DO - 10.1071/WF15164

    M3 - Article

    VL - 25

    SP - 1093

    EP - 1109

    JO - International Journal of Wildland Fire

    T2 - International Journal of Wildland Fire

    JF - International Journal of Wildland Fire

    SN - 1049-8001

    IS - 10

    ER -